HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/07/1998, 2 - CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTING NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT (NTM) GUIDELINES. council McciNDac 4ffl71998
j acEnba nepont ,«TNum6. _�
C I T Y O F S A N L U I S 0 S I S P O
FROM: Michael McCluskey,Director of Public Worl s
Prepared By: Terry Sanville,Principal Transportation Planner )
Al Cablay,Public Works Manager
SUBJECT: Continued consideration of adopting Neighborhood Traffic Management
(NTM Guidelines.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
The City Council should:
1. Adopt a Resolution approving Neighborhood Traffic Management (NTM) Guidelines as
proposed; and
2. Direct staff to bring back to the City Council a report on the Neighborhood Management
Program and any recommended modifications to the Neighborhood Traffic Management
Guidelines after 18 months of implementation.
DISCUSSION
Council Continuance: On February 17, 1998, the City Council was scheduled to consider the
draft NTM Guidelines. The Council continued its consideration of the guidelines to its April Th
meeting. The purpose of the continuance was to allow the public more time to learn about the
guidelines,to ask staff questions,and to provide comments.
Community Meeting: On March 18m, Public Works Department staff sponsored a community
meeting held in the Council Hearing Room at City Hall. An advertisement was placed in the
Telegram-Tribune newspaper notifying the public of the meeting and the availability of free
brochures and copies of the guidelines at the Public Works Department. The newspaper also
published a brief article that described this project.
The March 18th community meeting was attended by six residents, two add hoc committee
members,and three transportation staff members. Free brochures and copies of the guidelines were
available at the meeting. Of the residents attending,five were from the Johnson Avenue area just
south of Scolari's market and one was representing the interests of residents on South Street near
Meadow Park. To begin the session, the transportation staff made a brief presentation of the
process used to develop the guidelines. A video that presents what Seattle,Washington has done to
improve public streets was also previewed. For the remainder of the meeting,the staff answered
questions and provided additional background.
Public Comments: The table on the following page provides a listing of comments made by
residents at the March 18' meeting. They are arranged in the order that the issue is addressed in
the draft NTM Guidelines.
Council Agenda Report-Neighborhood Traffic Management Program and Guidelines
Page 2
om_ment Gffid6line
Reference
e City needs to make sure that the mix of members on a Ne-1'gWF3-rFo-oT Page 12,left column
Action Team fairly represents both tenants and land owners. Suggest a
50/50 split.
Action Plans should e allowed to include interim measures Brent -p-ag-e-1 4,right co umn
from "initial" or "temporary" measures) that would be installed before 6d'bulleted item
permanent facilities.
Action Plans should e allowed to present finding options for the Page 14,right column,
neighborhood and ultimately the City Council to consider as parrof its r bulleted item
action on the plan.
In neighborhoods where a significant number of households are renter Page ,nt co umn,
occupied, out-of-town landlords might not care about supporting NTM 2°d provision
activities and might not vote to support an Action Plan.
Why should a super-majority vote a required to approve an Action Plan Page 15,right co umn,
when the creation of an assessment district is proposed? 2°d provision
The proposed funding formula does not work or small areas. a mg Pages 16 an
formula is also intimidating.
The guidelines need to be clarified to define what is meant by "long-term Page 17,left column,
maintenance"as opposed to other types of maintenance. last provision
The time frame for completing the steps for solving a arge-sca a age IS,right co umn,
problem seems too long. What were these time frames based on? 2ad section
Page 20-21
Funding for projects on ResidentialArlerial streets should e fully paid for Page 23,leftcolumn,
by the City and not by the residents. It's the City's past actions that have 2 n provision
allowed development which cause the traffic problems.Maybe developers
could be charged fees earmarked for solving neighborhood traffic problems.
-10 Why aren't traffic signals included m the NIM Toolbox? ages - figure
The guidelines should include more visually-understandable graphics that Pages 51-55,
depict the various NTM tools. Appendix I
The City should try to spread traffic out over a number of routes and not
concentrate traffic only on one street. For example,maybe Johnson Avenue
and San Luis Drive could be modified to be a pair of one-way streets.
13 Property continues to "devalued" because ot the cumulative removal o
curb parking. The City should pay adjoining owners when parking is
removed.
Other written comments provided at the community meeting and received by staff under separate
cover are available in the City Council office for review.
�-�-z
Council Agenda Report-Neighborhood Traffic Management Program and Guidelines
Page 3
Review of Comments to Date: The public response to the draft NTM guidelines has been sparse.
For those commenting,the issue of who pays for NTM facilities is probably the most significant
concern. This concern can be summarized as follows:
• The amount of funding provided by the proposed household allowance[$140 per household]is
too low.
• The funding formula does not work well for small residential areas.
• Neighborhood residents are not creating the traffic management problems on Residential
Arterial streets. So why should they pay for the solutions?
• Major NTM proposals should be considered as capital improvement projects for inclusion in
the City's Financial Plan.
• The proposed funding strategy might be interpreted too strictly and not provide the flexibility
that a neighborhood or the City Council need.
Provisions of the draft guidelines provide a strategy for sharing project costs between the City and
neighborhood residents. Various options for meeting this objective were explored by the Public
Works staff and the citizens ad hoc committee including:
• Establishing a maximum funding amount available for any large-scaleNTM project.
• Budgeting an annual lump sum then distributing the funds on a first-come-first-servebasis.
• Limiting large-scale NTM projects to one per fiscal year and including a target amount in the
budget to pay for it.
• Collecting all projects and considering them for inclusion into the City's two-year Financial
Plan at budget time.
• Considering each Action Plan as it comes to the City Council and figuring out the financing at
that point.
• Various combinations of these alternatives.
Staff continues to support the funding strategy included in the draft NTM Guidelines. Its efficacy
will be evaluated during the proposed 18-month trial period. However our initial research indicates
that successful neighborhood programs in major U.S. cities, such as Seattle, Washington,provide
for the financial participation of neighborhood residents. By requiring financial participation:
• Options for solving problems are more thoroughly explored;and
• Community and neighborhood residents become more aware of NTM activities,are more likely
to participate in their design and to accept the results.
Also to provide some flexibility, the draft guidelines include provisions that enable the City
Council to vary from the funding formula at the time that it considers adopting an Action Plan
(reference page 16,left column,2nd bulleted item,last sentence).
ATTACHMENTS
Council Agenda Report and Resolution from the February 17'x"meeting.
Written Public Comments(available in City Council Office)
i
councit
j acEnaa WPM
CITY
i
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Mike McCluskey,Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Al Cablay,Public Works Manager
Deb Larson, Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ff M)PROGRAM
AND GUIDELINES
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt Resolution adopting Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines as proposed.
2. Direct staff to bring back to the City Council a report on the Neighborhood Management
Program and any recommended modifications to the Neighborhood Traffic Management
Guidelines after 18 months of implementation.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
In December 1996, the San Luis Obispo City Council directed the Department of Public Works
to prepare guidelines for managing vehicle traffic in residential areas. To help with this work,
the Department foamed an ad hoc committee of San Luis Obispo residents supported by City
staff. In December 1997, the committee completed the draft Neighborhood Traffic Management
Guidelines (Exhibit A).
The stated purpose of these Neighborhood Traffic Management (NTM) Guidelines is to maintain
and improve the quality of life in San Luis Obispo's residential areas by reducing problems
associated with motor vehicle traffic. The Guidelines apply to:
• Residential Local streets
• Residential Collector streets
• Residential Arterial streets
The Guidelines have two main components: The NTM Process, and the NTM Tool Box. The
process leads neighborhoods and staff in a series of steps toward implementation of a traffic
management plan while the tool box provides various means of traffic management that, taken
together, form the physical elements of the plan.
A key issue identified was the fimding methodology used to implement traffic management. In
other cities where traffic management was found to have the success, citizens of the benefiting
neighborhood participate in funding of the improvements. Thus, the Guidelines propose the
funding of the NTM facilities to be the shared responsibility of the City and study area
households or property owners.
Council Agenda Report–Neighborhood Traffic Management Program and Guidelines
Page 2
Staff suggests implementation of the Guidelines as proposed, with an initial 18 month trial
period provided to ascertain their validity. After the trial period, staff will report back to the City
Council on the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program and provide any recommended
modifications.
DISCUSSION
Background
San Luis Obispo has already successfully implemented traffic management devices at various
locations throughout the City. Examples of devices include speed humps, the raised school
crosswalk and median planter on Augusta Street at Sinsheimer School, Ramona Drive bulb-outs,
a raised marked crosswalk west of Broad Street, the Broad Street speed humps, and the Marsh
Street "make-over" including bulb outs and marked crossings of colored textured pavement. On
the other hand, the Council has also been involved in the controversy related to Chorro Street
speed humps and traffic circles. Due to the"Chorro" experience, the City Council, in December
1996,directed the Department of Public Works to prepare guidelines for managing vehicle traffic
in residential areas.
Staff was directed to develop a formal set of guidelines that would provide direction to staff and
community residents on roles and responsibilities, anticipate outcomes, and include notification
requirements, consensus building, required levels of support, financial responsibilities, and other
related topics. Staff researched different cities and counties for various criteria and
methodologies for Neighborhood Traffic Management. To help with this work, the Department
also formed an ad hoc committee of San Luis Obispo residents supported by City staff. The
Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines document is in response to this Council direction.
The ad hoc committee included residents living throughout the City. Special acknowledgment
goes to the committee members. The committee members included: Charlie Herrera, Laguna
Lake area; Bernard Hartley, Meadow Park neighborhood; Betsy Umhofer, vicinity of Johnson
Avenue; Scott Eades, Sinsheimer region; Leo Pinard, old town; Naoma Wright, Foothill area;
Stephanie Valliere, Ferrini neighborhood; Paula Can-, Hathway neighborhood; and Cydney
Holcomb, Monterey Heights. City staff included Wendy George, Administration; Rob Bryn,
Community Development; Captain Cliff Chelquist and Sergeant Bud Silva, Police Department;
Spencer Meyer and Captain Tom Zeulner, Fire Department; and Al Cablay, Terry Sanville and
Deb Larson,Public Works.
The committee was charged with the mission of developing guidelines for the City Council's
consideration, which could be used by residents throughout the City to manage vehicular traffic
in their neighborhoods. The "lick-off' meeting was held June 18, 1997. At this meeting the
committee identified neighborhood traffic concerns. Between August and December 1997, the
committee met about every two weeks to review technical information, discuss various
neighborhood traffic management topics, and help with the development of the Guidelines.
Committee decisions regarding items such as types of devices and activities, programs, and the
process were made by consensus.
2-5
Council Agenda Report—Neighborhood Traffic Management Program and Guidelines
Page 3
The committee recommended that treatment in any neighborhood should be: a) designed to
accommodate bicycles and pedestrians; b) reviewed by the transit operator if along a bus route;
and c) meet current emergency vehicle response time standards. The final document consists of
two major elements: the process to achieve neighborhood traffic management and the tools to
use to effectively manage the traffic.
The Neighborhood Traffic Management Process
The Neighborhood Traffic Management (NTM) Process separates the program into small-scale
problems and large-scale problems. Small scale problems are typically those where solutions can
be carried out in a relatively short period of time - as is done by staff today. Examples of small
scale problems might include posting of speed limit signage, having landscape trimmed to
improve visibility, installing curve warning signage or school signage, or reviewing stop sign
warrants. An example of a large scale problem might be traffic speeds or volumes which are
excessive along one or more street corridors or concerns along Residential Arterial Streets.
These larger scale problems will require an area-wide approach, providing the opportunity to
involve residents, land owners, and motorists driving through the area.
It is anticipated solutions to large scale problems, by their very nature, will take time. The
Guidelines identify a multi-step process in developing solutions as shown in Figure 1 below.
Figure
41 `Neightiorhoad Traffiiahagement.Large Scale Problems ;
MulirSt -
Process _ �" .: u,_Des tion:of-Process,:.. . .
1) Resident contacts First a resident contacts the Public Works office. Then to validate that
the Public Works there is agreement among neighborhood residents that a problem exists,
Office at least two other households along the street corridor are to submit
letters of concern or sign a petition.
2) Transportation If the concern in validated; the Transportation Staff will review the
Staff will review the traffic conditions in the field to define the area that is experiencing the
traffic conditions in problem(s). A brief report will then be prepared by staff presenting the
the field results of the field work and conclusions concerning the presence or
absence of a large-scale NTM problem. This report is submitted to the
initial households raising the concern.
3) Ask area When the initial households are in favor of proceeding, the area
households if they are households within the proposed study area will be asked if they are in
in favor of the favor of the preparation of an NTM Action Plan for their neighborhood.
preparation of an At least 25% of all households in the study area are to support the
NTM Action Plan preparation of a plan.
4)Neighborhood If support is obtained; an ad hoc Neighborhood Action Team will be
Action Team would formed with the goal to develop equitable and affordable solutions to the
be formed traffic problems in the study area. The Neighborhood Action Team may
consider less costly initial activities to solve the area problem(s), such as
placement of the speed trailer, a Neighborhood Watch Program,
pavement markings, or appropriate si a e.
-,--¢�o
-Y�
Council Agenda Report—Neighborhood Traffic Management Program and Guidelines
Page 4
5) Development of If problem(s) remain, the Neighborhood Action Team may prepare an
Draft NTM Action NTM Action Plan. Once developed, the NTM Action Plan will be
Plan distributed to all study area property owners and households along with
notice of a community meeting. The availability of the draft NTM
Action Plan, and the community meeting will be published in the
Telegram-Tribune newspaper with the general public invited to
attend. The Neighborhood Action Team will be the sponsor of the
community meeting with Transportation Staff making the arrangements:-.
6) Final Draft NTM With consideration of community input, a final draft plan will be
Action Plan prepared by the Neighborhood Action Team and distributed to all
distributed to all households and property owners. A vote to approve the draft NTM
households and Action Plan will require a 51% support of the study area's
property owners households if improvements can be funded through available means, or
60%** support of the study area's property owners that return
ballots if an assessment district process is proposed.
7) Final Draft NTM If support is obtained, the final draft NTM Action Plan will be
Action Plan will be submitted to the City Council and the Council may consider adoption;
submitted to the City
Council
8 Funding This is a key issue and is discussed elsewhere in this report.
9) NTM Facilities With City Council approval, the Department of Public Works will
design,installation administer the design and installation of the proposed facilities and
and monitoring monitor their effectiveness.
At any time, the Director of Public Works may order modification or
removal of an approved NTM device when the Director determines the
device is creating a hazardous condition.
** It should be noted that the Guidelines require the support of 70% or more of the study area's
property owners. Based on further research into the requirements for assessment districts under
Proposition 218 (the criteria used by the committee to set this standard) staff is now
recommending that the requirement be reduced to 60% of the study area's property owners that
return ballots.
The Neighborhood Traffic Management Toolbox
A Neighborhood Traffic Management (NTM) "Tool" is a physical device (such as a speed hump
or traffic circle) or an activity (such as speed enforcement) that alters the driving behavior of
motorists. The Guidelines identify various types of NTM tools that may be used in San Luis
Obispo to resolve or reduce NTM problems. To match the appropriate tool or combination of
tools to an NTM problem, the toolbox has been arranged into "drawers" based on the primary
purpose of a particular device.
The drawers in the toolbox consist of the following:
Council Agenda Report—Neighborhood Traffic Management Program and Guidelines
Page 5
• The Speed Control Drawer
• The Volume Drawer
• The Safety Drawer
• Other Complementary Tools
Funding Strateav
The Guidelines identify the funding of NTM facilities to be the shared responsibility of the City
and study area households or property owners based on a City funding allowance formula
($140/household), beyond which the costs would be shared between the City and the study area
households or property owners up to a maximum amount($10,000)per NTM project.
This funding formula was arrived at after lengthy discussions by the committee members. The
consensus of the committee members was as follows:
EYgnre #2. NeighborhoodYTraffic Management
The:Fundin Strat
+• Basic"No The funding formula dollar amount is based on basic "no frills"
Frills" improvements within a neighborhood. The formula will allow City
$140/household funding to be tied to the size of the study area and will not penalize large
Funding areas. The $140/household figure is based on an example utilizing 100
Formula households, 1128 linear meter roadway with stop signs at one
intersection and road humps every 122 meters, approximately 1 per
block, including striping and advance warning signs, at a total cost of
$13,800 divided by 100 households,rounded to $140/household.
• Maximum A maximum cap is requested to allow more projects to go forward -
Amount of spreading the funds throughout the community rather than on one
$10,000/Pro'ect project.
• Funding For those projects where the cost of the NTM facilities exceed the
Exceeding funding formula amounts (example: enhancements proposed such as
Maximum benches, landscaping, irrigation, tile boarders, neighborhood entry
Amount signage) the committee felt the neighborhood should contribute to the
project funding.
Funding strategies may include,but are not limited to:
1) Study area households organize fund raising activities
• Advantage — no administrative costs, quick for
neighborhoods to implement
• Disadvantage — may not be preferred method for higher
cost facilities
Council Agenda Report—Neighborhood Traffic Management Program and Guidelines
Page 6
2) Establishment of a Benefit-Assessment District
• Advantage — could be alternative for implementation of
higher-cost NTM projects
• Disadvantages — Council must review on a case-by-case
basis; likely high administrative costs associated with
levying and collecting assessments (Prop. 218), increasing
the cost of the project; and will take longest time to
implement(as a District)
3) Establish Municipal Code provisions that would enable the City to
pay for the installation of NTM facilities then assess individual
property owners as part of their tax bill, similar to sidewalk funding
under Municipal Code Chapter 12.
• Advantages -- could be alternative for implementation of
higher-cost NTM projects
• Disadvantages — Council must review on a case-by-case
basis; will require inclusion of administrative costs,
determination of interest rate, term, method of collection,
etc., increasing cost of project; not ready for immediate
implementation, as it will require Municipal code
provision processing.
• Request for Projects requesting City funding contribution above $10,000 would be
Funding presented through the 2-year budget cycle to be prioritized along with
Exceeding other capital projects. These projects would be brought forward only
Maximum after an NTM Action Plan had been adopted. An example of these
Amount projects might be a Large Scale Project along a Residential Arterial
Street which might include curb extensions (bulbouts), and a landscaped
center median barrier.
• On-Going The City would pay for on-going maintenance of NTM facilities in
Maintenance by public right-of-ways or easements
City
Program Administration
The San Luis Obispo Department of Public Works will be responsible for administering the
Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines. This program will become one of many
elements to the City's Working to Improve Neighborhoods (WIN)program.
Further Review by City Council
Because this is a new document and because many of the suggestions within the Guidelines will
be unfamiliar to the community, staff is suggesting implementation of the Guidelines as
r
Council Agenda Report—Neighborhood Traffic Management Program and Guidelines
Page 7
proposed, with an 18 month trial time period, after which a report will be prepared for Council
review and comment on any recommended modifications.
CONCURRENCES
• The committee, consisting of community members and staff from the Police, Fire, Public
Works, and Community Developments, agrees with the recommendations by consensus, with
the exception of member Pinard.
• The Community Development Department has determined that the Neighborhood Traffic
Management Guidelines do not constitute a "project" under the California Environmental
Quality Act(CEQA) and is exempt from further environmental review.
ALTERNATIVES
• Take no action. Based on prior experiences with attempts to implement NTM programs,
staff believes that there is a strong need for standardized guidelines to be in place and does
not recommend this altemative.
• Adopt with modifications as identified by the City Council.
• Return to the Committee. The Guidelines were developed by an ad hoc committee which
spent numerous hours researching, understanding and recommending the information
contained in the Guidelines This option is recommended if significant modifications are
proposed..
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: NTM Guidelines,Public Review Draft, February 1998 (Council only. Copy
available in City Clerk's Office.)
Exhibit B: NTM Program, draft brochure
,2 -�v
Council Agenda Report—Neighborhood Traffic Management Program and Guidelines
Page 8
FISCAL IMPACT
The City's budget currently identifies $40,000 per year to be utilized for NTM activities.
The Guidelines propose:
• Similar fimding levels in future years for basic "No Frills" projects. Additional costs to be
shared between the City and the households or property owners. The City's maximum
contribution per NTM project would be $10,000.
• Large Scale Projects which may request additional City contributions, would be funded
through the 2-year budget cycle.
• On-going maintenance of improvements within the City's right-of-way or within easements
would be provided by the City.
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ADOPTING NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT(NTM)GUIDELINES
WHEREAS, on December 10, 1996 the City Council directed its Transportation Staff to prepare
Neighborhood Traffic Management (NTM Guidelines to establish and organize an equitable method of
pursuing neighborhoodtraffic management goals of the Circulation Element;and
WHEREAS, the Department of Public Works organized an ad hoc committee of neighborhood
residents to provide input into the development of NTM Guidelines;and
WHEREAS, the committee met approximately every two weeks between August and December
1997 to review technical information, discuss various neighborhood traffic management topics, and help
with the development of this document; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that the adoption of these
Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines does not constitute "a project" and is therefore exempt
from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA).
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1: The Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines attached as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by reference are hereby adopted for immediate implementation.
On motion of ,seconded by and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted on this day of ,1998.
Mayor Allen K. Settle
ATTEST APPROVED
City Clerk tyNorriii Je ey rgensen
;:Cosi agenda RepomW i Council Resolution
O y
n rt
` y
ci .�`. 5 O
y n b i
ARM d9pbdy ? p " ° o o a s a ^ y z
00 a s ° Z..oq a es
ct S ip y RL ° Cb 5 5 C 5 n
IZL-
a `e t ZLkC3
a r 3 3
° moo a a °
I.+ b W
� c
rn =� o 'ti -� s o o °; 0 3 Y d •o
to
to CD
CO.D =N y = CD`�;
!2.
SC' O mS oyw
MCO O0 n O-' O
= _
sn o: m
n
to
A Gc c
o m CD
to
SD CD
�OC
CD tcCD to y O' 0 0 oQ s =
7 w O s m prCA vmi 7 N A7 v=i O 'O A
CD
m n O 3cr
CD O a n. a .a w O N y n (D 'n w O 3 a m
O d H O cr CD
(D r- ° H 'a �'C y fc O' O !D
13 o o
SD
o o b Y a m �. g �p,
S
0 0 ° r o i s m R R o CD 03 Er
aQO
Cc .. pT O [a N 5 (D Op O !D
O a"' O caD O p' y
c2 p 8 o. G. b 3 \ 4. -, 5 w
30
IV
=r 00c�D coo y w e oc CD a m o
in
34'R- _ rl-- $..11=Y�i�� 4il u "w
s, T r I I TL 1
p.
— I„[� ”'X41 L rV:�t c I I}a• ���
I A il 4 Ifs v J' - 1 //� '►w�]
Nj.
b•
IY � O rT/.• f V ' ; '1 1 `4 F� I fT�•'•'%^ 1Y•. •� �ryT � �r�� JIB ..� T .
00
V`ul C 'F'.'CJ.rp I ra ry ''. .O
V �p: w 4�� �. v Y.h'f'�I rf •"I.. KF CAi"
r L _
—�.O,p•r QTY - - w 1, t� { � � �` '� -
IL
IL
I I � n -p r� I L• � � � I % � 1
7u 7
re3
_ o
T =
C O N O U U w V U - p - j 'Oj �7Lj rYS+4
N ^ V O CL L Y Q °C.• C a N > ° OJ 7 U
�O,p � r`.{ •N„ N .fl U = p •O - C >> .0.0 Ca - _C7L v _ � .� Z O
3 • - - u = c E
3 m U C j O 2 O ,1 ca '� L ;� 'G.p v •^ '°' .°. E =�' Co
k U U
O O N o - m Q O �_ C p C -vmi 'rl u C O J > ; > _T C r� ey]
Cq V] Q N 3 w L c y U s$ G U E O F t o m v ^ o ° U u w
C t U p U 7 O aO •O ^ G 'n v p y C o o > cp U N N U •O �..
ei N ocn > llsu = N E Q E u V a > c o e L E
e N )� U_ 0. 00 _- - E 7 U ° m L
x a> ; O 9 U y ._ N d O O = C J - •° O m
cFou.yooC� ue rn•�-" o`eo4 o vo =E au od°c' sa =vi u 3 '�° ( U m s N e omT tH rja°' U3 9m=. E c� C yM
0
o ccn occ
-0 C*
" '
>0 0 v c Eqm
v>
> E
oa > Ec 3 ° p E
° o° ' : EE U o CL •0 UO •0 >
° ^L m C �' po m y p Y L 0 7 C C N m
Y
- L EyvF. E o o d
•CLO 00 u 'o < d
3
1:6 �>`e d u tJ C O C 'D t rY _ y > > p '•' y I�. G, p
v o 0 .o 0 y 9 n v 0 m m E = o o m N 4p -a Q
C6 - o d
O .� v] N 9 5 C H `� o O Y+ U C d m
CA W
e E 9 9 U ° 'u u 2 >T'- '_ft, U T O C m R U
d o N :S u t o > >.a� IE o `u o u E ° o -E La
U E r +> 9 N N N a °. N L Gw a O F ah -00 h Q Sao, e
m E m
um oes ui w= ou U _ •os e 5e m co v ' • ' mGU
L Y O dyYaV ' 0
- o = EY E
0 = h Eo u o N U n c o
E .0 Nu -
N ouU Q.-
'aiu
o aN7•L EU: v•N�"v" ,�UEm' tW9a ' muetuNd LFouE •'mopu qC Odc •�mOC
t V O - 0C dc tU2 ump
md pmr N a -0 =_36mCL
o rOh o
rtm
y 0 o o > U
rA u 0 aO z o E yaddTcO
? °• o cn m uo EE
U > > o
o > yo a Ev o nN33
5hQ-
u o o.Q s �
tr d p a N E y em u ca cmi E d Q >ba
e ami
Ny d 9
o m u m aoi �_ o u m E ° u y E G 8 °> .
H
>,Z E N a 3 ° e3 \��1��/ N G N ^� 0 > oT o f 'o 0.
o u e
CLI to x MO
.+ C ° C 'A �+ C �i O� m d E iC C C Z U V N C �, E O p �_
Y p E u a �i/�It\ S eo ai y ?' ° m `u to a d E ° $
l3 ` C1 iO U •V U C 7 U aCJ C
t � `° c o -P ` .m = .a n� c � 'o `m' 0 - o � o 'cscooma
0 3v� n �' o e 3 m Aw .� 2+ o O � s° E E c E o
T p N OCO r
o U m •J L T N O C O % U '>
C, a s
NE UU C
o o p y0
0 OmN CSoy : aO.
i
a ar =oo_ o o � o 3y o a7 a co o Ut Ey
e01a� w a . p� Q G " - u N
Ca � � w C n C, �qL .J q3 2Y_ �^ ` C O do
C - .°] 3 c `�° C E o �i m 6 p9 0 L° ami `u o m c4 v .5 y
�•• c >, E �jyy s N mo E eEi
F �" y 1J• G L �O t O E E-
co
C m O O U 'UO O